Talk:Nakba Day/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Mediation

There is an active request for mediation of the neutrality issue on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if people at least could correct spelling and do wikilinks properly while they are disputing things. And certain points don't to be repeated more than once. It's a short article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and found it biased and not at all neutral for eg:

They were exploited by the Arab governments of these countries as political pawns.

Is this mischief of someone or simply a POV? I propose to remove this line as it's clearly a POV. 01:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs)

I have removed the line "They were exploited by the Arab governments of these countries as political pawns." as I found it as non neutral. --Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing sentence as there is no source cited for it and search for source provided no NPOV article. "Furthermore, Palestinians were on the whole were denied citizenship in the countries to which they fled." 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs)

Interwiki links

There are several links from this page to articles "in other languages". However, most of these are to general Nakba articles. Should the article link to these, or only to specific Nakba Day articles? RolandR (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban

This ban is a clear violation of the probation policy. Admin should misuse his privilage against policy and I expect for this ban to be removed.

Why did tony Sideway misused his admin powers ?

According to probation policy admin are expected to take the time to look into an issue before applying any bans.

I am not editing this article out of my own decision

If Tony would have taken the time to read the talk page he would find this message from me (placed before he applied a ban): "

*I don't think this article is the place to fight over these issues. It is a "nakba day" and all facts about what is "nakba" should be moved to article Nakba. ramllite I left you a personal note.

*I put a proposal to return this article to sanity and avoid discussion of what was the "truth".

*There is more than one "truth" and it is found in other articles. This article is about a day not about the whole 1948 war. think about it before you revert me.

*I will not participate in this edit war so if you revert me you will "win" . I suggest we find a meditor instead. Zeq 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC) "

So it clear that I did not want to partcipate in the edit war that Ian started in this article about what did or did not took place in 1948. Ian has threaten on this talk page) that he plan to use my probation to ban me from this article (or something with similar results) and Ian editing pattern show he was trying to "trap" an editor under probation who was trying to avoid this article turnning into another battle-ground for 1948 events.

I expect that the ban be removed, that Ian will not start another edit war. In anycase I have decided (at least for a while) not to edit this article and I am looking for a mediator to help resolve the issues here. Zeq 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review a ban from editing this article that I placed on Zeq under the conditions of an earlier arbitration case.

Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that case doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and will place an update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Appology accepted and there is no need for it since Tony did what ia have asked him to do: Look deeper at the real issues.

As I have stated here: [1] , [2] and in the edit summary here: [3] - I do not plan to enetr any edit war, I think this article should be mediated and I plan to stay away from this article for a while anyhow.

I suggest that everyone will look at this talk page, it starts by asking Ian to use talk instead of reverts. Nothing that occured on this talk page has caused Ian to change any of his editwar/reverts. this is the real problem

Zeq 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a section on "Objections to commemoration of Nakba"? Is there a similar section in the article on the celebration of Israel's anniversary? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First Nakba Day ever

When was the first Nakba Day ever? In what year? Israguy (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like 1998. Israguy (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, as you can see from the information I added to the article, its been practiced for decades. Tiamut^talk 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is no true. Land Day is practiced since 1976, but not Nakba day. Israguy (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources disagree with you. Read them. They are cited in the article in the section on commemorations at the end of the sentences they support. Do you need to see more? Tiamut^talk 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still not clear what year was the first commemoration of the Nakba Day, using the term "Nakba". Your sources say not before the 1990s, but are not clear about the actual year. Israguy (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a source that can pinpoint the first year. At the beginning, as noted by the sources, commemoration was a personal and communal activity. People started the commemorations and the official bodies representing Palestinians were slow to pick up on it. The rticle makes this clear right now by presenting whatever information we have and letting the reader decide for themselves how to interpret it, instead of picking an artificial start date, not borne out by the sources. Tiamut^talk 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it clear. When is "At the beginning"? Israguy (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered your question. The commemorations were ad hoc for some time before being embraced by official bodies representing the Palestinian people. As there are many, depending on where the Palestinians in question live, the dates for official commemorations will differ. We have no source offering one definitive date for the first Nakba commemoration. We have two indicating that small scale commemorations took place decades ago (Masalha and Cohen), another that republished PLO calls for a day of national mourning in 1988, another saying the event was inaugurated by Arafat in 1998. We have reported what all these sources have to say without making any WP:OR conclusions. Let the reader read what the sources have to say and make up their own mind. Tiamut^talk 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way ... is there a reason you restored the bullet points in the government sub-section of the Israeli positions section? Generally, prose is prefereble to a list format. I'd like to remove them again. This would mean I made one revert and if you undo my edit that would be your second, which would not be allowed. I'm telling you this to make you aware of WP:EW in general. I'd also like to avoid an edit war, so your agreement in advance would be nice. Tiamut^talk 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Government section IS a list. A list of two items. I think it's better this way, since these two items are independent, years apart, and also were done by two different Government branchs (One is the Minister of Education, and the other is the Knesset). Israguy (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a list because you made it one. The source I added and the edit I made connected the two ideas, in prose format, and attributed both to the campaign of Yisrael Beitenu. You deleted that and separated the idea into two disparate events, which is not how the source dealt with it at all. I think we need to restore some of what I wrote that you took out. Tiamut^talk 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You say these two event are attributed to the campaign of Yisrael Beitenu. But the Minister of Education of Israel is from the Likud party. So this is a mistake to attributed both to Yisrael Beitenu. The list is a less misleading and a more neutral edit of the article. Israguy (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the list problem was solved by GHCool, who turned the text into prose without bullet points. The ideas remain separated however which is not what the source cited indicates. You know as well as I do that Yisrael Beitenu is part of the Likud led coalition government in Israel, so its possible for the campaign against Nakba commemorations to be led by them and acted upon my other parts of the government. That's what the source cited indicates and that's what we should write. Are you challenging the source's reliability? Tiamut^talk 20:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I's not a question of me challenging the source's reliability. A lot of things are possible. But an Encyclopedia should contain only facts, not things that may or may not be true. Israguy (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. There are no facts. There is only what reliable secondary sources have to say. This one is quite clear about the Nakba legisltation being tied to the campaign by Yisrael Beiteinu. If you have a problem with the sorce's reliability, please raise it at WP:RSN. Otherwise, its valid to include it. Tiamut^talk 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of information

Israguy, you deleted text I added on Zochrot and changed the heading of the section from "Israeli positions" to "Israeli objections [4]. This doesn't seem right. Its rather POV to highlight only Israeli objections to the Nakba Day events as though those are the only opinions that count. Could you please undo your edit? Or, could you let me now if you would object to my undoing it? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to you undoing it, simply because I didn't delete the Zochrot text. I just moved it to the "Commemoration" section (because this is what Zochrot do - commemorate the Nakba). The next section after that should be only about those who oppose the Nakba. In this case, maybe the word "Israeli" should be removed from the "Israeli objections" section's title (since not all Israelis oppose to the Nakba, and also there may be non-Israelis who do oppose the Nakba). Israguy (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the Zochrot text now. Sorry for missing it. However, your retitling isn't working for me at all right now. Changing the heading of the section to read simply "Objections to the Nakba" when all the content is Israeli objections is a little misleading to for the reader. That whole section is Israeli POVs on the Nakba and that's why "Israeli positions" was a better title (and why I added Zochrot, so as to balance the negative with positive views of Nakba Day events which do exist, albeit among a minority, in Israel). Will you reconsider your position? Or do you have an alternate suggestion to address my concerns? Tiamut^talk 19:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Because the title heading is "Objections to commemoration of Nakba", I've removed information that is a general critique of the Nakba narrative (i.e. Im Tirtzu's campaign, the education ministry banning of the word Nakba in textbooks, and the Jewish exodus info). I've also retitiled the subheadings gto include "Israeli" since the objections are from this sector. Tiamut^talk 07:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: What I removed has been readded by Israguy without discussion. Am I to understand that this section should include Israeli objections to the Nakba narrative in general? Aren't those outside the scope of this article which deals with Nakba Day rather than the Nakba in general (which is discussed at the somewhat awkwardly titled 1948 Palestinian exodus?) Shouldn't we limit the objections (and support) to the commemoration activities rather than getting into a debate over why the Nakba was or was not justified? Tiamut^talk 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion for your concerns: I think there should be two sections about commemoration of Nakba - one for those who are pro-commemoration (such as: Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, Zochrot), and second for those who are con-commemoration (such as: Israel media, Israel government). Israguy (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the same comment you made in response to my comments in the section below. Could you continue the discussion there and answer my question regarding article scope? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite "Objection to commemoration of Nakba" section

Currently this section in the article has a number of problems. First, it is essentially all about Israeli objections to the Nakba. It should be titled "Israeli positions" and it should include the views of Israelis who spport Nakba Day commemorations, like Zochrot, who I tried to include in the "Organizations" sub-section, and for example, Gideon Levy who wrote this article, "Israeli Jews should mark Nakba Day, too", whose views could be added to the "Media" section. This would make the article more NPOV. Are there any objections to restructuring this section in this fashion? Tiamut^talk 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could editors making bold rewrites to this section please respond to the suggestions and comments raised here? I'd appreciate feedback and coordination on how to proceed. If I don't get any, I'll just go ahead an make the edits and hope that those who have an issue with them will discuss here first before reverting. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate to your suggestion : I think there should be two sections about commemoration of Nakba - one for all those who are pro-commemoration (such as: Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, Zochrot), and second for all those who are con-commemoration (such as: Israel media, Israel government). In this case, the word "Israel" should be removed from section's title. Israguy (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All the material we have that is pro or anti-commemoration that needs a home comes from Israeli writers. As such, it should all be discussed in the same sub-section "Israeli positions on Nakba Day". I don't see why we should create separate sections for pro and anti commemoration positions.

Also, could you answer my question about the scope of the critiques or support we are including here? I've tried to remove rebuttals to the Nakba narrative itself from the material in the article and have been reverted. Are we going to include support for the Nakba narrative too? This article is about Nakba Day and not the Nakba itself (which is discussed at length at 1948 Palestinian exodus). It will become unwieldy if we don't set clear guidelines for the article scope. Tiamut^talk 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is about the commemoration of the Nakba, the most neutral thing to do is to have a section, about those who oppose this commemoration. You say that only Israelis oppose this, and that may be right at this time, but this may change in the future. Also, since there is already a section about commemoration, why should it exclude Israeli commemoration? Israguy (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to have a section abot objections to the commemoration of the Nakba when it is fringe minority that actally objects to it. Its only Israelis and not even all Israelis who oppose Palestinians mourning the loss of Palestine. Actually most of the people besides Palestinians and Arabs who care about this day one way or the other are Israelis. That's why its appropriate to have a section abot Israeli views, pro and con for the commemoration of this day. Plus, it is reflective of the material we have, rather than what might one day emerge. (Strange to wrtie an article anticipating the emergence of opinions that currently do not exist in any significant fashion). The section on commemoration by the way does include Israelis who participate in commemorations (Arab citizens of Israel are Israelis remember?) Israeli support for the commemorations from Jewish Israelis who do not participate in the events is important to note too though. Tiamut^talk 09:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reasons

It seems to me the reasons for the displacement that is commemorated in Nakba Day are not presented in the article. I think it is of acute relevance and importance. The way the article is presented, it sounds as though Muslims and Arabs where suddenly expelled for no reason, and without any prior events to explain it. While it is true that the reasons are presented in other (linked) articles, I think it should at least be stated that the exodus was primarily caused by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war following Israel's declaration of independence. 79.176.19.115 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a common misconception that the exodus was a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In fact, however, it began before that (see Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus). The reasons are not simple and are disputed in the scholarship. Bringing that dispute here would overwhelm this article. It is enough to say that the 1948 Palestinian exodus occurred in the context of the 1948 Palestine war. The rest can't be easily summarized. Tiamut^talk 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though it may have began before, the majority of the refugees left or where expelled during or because of the war. Furthermore, the Nakba itself is held annually on 15 May or on 5 Iyyar, making the link to Israel's declaration of independence and the following war even clearer. I'm not saying it should be portrayed as the main reason or cause for the Nakba, just that it should be mentioned, for clearly it is highly relevant. 79.176.19.115 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We already do mention the link to Israel's declaration of independence in the "Timing" section (and note that Israel's independence day falls on May 14th, and not May 15th in the Gregorian calendar, though that's beside the point since it is commemorated in Israel according to the Hebrew calendar date). In the first sentence of the article, we also state that the commemoration of Nakba Day centers around the displacement that accompanied Israel's creation. And in the "Defining Nakba" section, we mention that the refugees were expelled or fled during the 1948 Palestine War. I don't see what else specifically needs to be mentioned. Could you suggest a sample rewrite so that I can better understand what you are aiming at? Tiamut^talk 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue this article does not address is: Why the refugees are still refugees? The answer is not Israel's declaration of independence. Not the 1948 Arab-Israeli. And not the 1948 Palestine war. The answer has two parts to it:

• Israel passed a law, that does not allow the refugees to return into the state of Israel and to become its citizens.
• Some Arab countries that are hosting refugees also passed laws, preventing them civil rights and to be absorbed and becoming citizens of these Arab countries.

Israguy (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think why the refugees are still refugees is outside the scope of this article. This article is about Nakba Day and not the Nakba itself, the continuing irresolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Palestinian right of return. We need to include a little background on what the Nakba is, but we don't need to analyze the reasons it came about or remains an issue in an article about the how the day is commemorated. Tiamut^talk 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to spin off 2011 commemorations into own article

The 2011 section is overwhelming the article s other years do not have the same level of coverage. I think its also only going to get larger as its significance grows in the days, weeks, and years to come. Could we spin it off to its own article and include maximum one paragraph on it here without its own subsection and wikilink to it for people who want to read more? We can title it Nakba Day (2011) or 2011 Nakba Day. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think 2011 Nakba Day, with Category:Conflicts in 2011 in it. Israguy (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly suggest 2011 Nakba Day clashes. That's why it is notable in and of itself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's already large and has potential to keep growing (lot of commentary on it, ex. Haaretz called it "unprecedented."[5]) I don't think there's gonna be any opposition to a move anyway. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Started the article. I agree with Tiamut that we should have maximum one passage on the events here. Should we just delete the info in this article save the first paragraph which could be expanded a little? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Shall I go ahead? Tiamut^talk 09:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note though that new info is being added all the time and shold be checked against what is in the other article to make sre things are not lost. Tiamut^talk 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Should be "in light of their relatively higher standards of living when compared to that of Palestinians who are residents outside of Israel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.155.117 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

At least 12 killed

The source cited is no longer valid. It was released in haste less than 24 hours after the event. I'm not calling the AFP as a whole no good. I'm just saying the media report that is cited should no longer be concidered valid.

The "at least 12 killed" that some media reports is a combination of deaths not just in the Golan, but other places as well. Look at the source that appears alongside the AFP. It says 13 died across Israel. So "at least 12" died in Golan?

I understand the Nakba is an emotional issue for many people, but that is no reason to eschew the regular way we do things around here.

Most certainly we should mention the Nakba day demonstrations. We also shouldn't hide causualty figures. But finding something on the internet that you like doesn't necessarily mean you need to share it with people on Wikipedia. Is it still a valid source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modinyr (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Add video for Commemoration section

Hi, I am a volunteer of Global Lives Project. Dance video might be helpful on this page to show how people commemorate the day? Found a video on Shamaliya dance. The video is here [6]Indu Murali (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

I have found misleading information on this article where the author has selectively chosen information from a listed source. Please see below and accompanying explanation:

"On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[26] At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army.[27]"

On the [27] source page, it clearly states that "Tensions along the Israeli-Syrian frontier spiralled as thousands of protesters from Syria tried to force their way onto the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, prompting the army to open fire in one of the worst incidents of violence there since a 1974 truce accord."

However, in the wikipedia article, it misleads the reader into thinking that the Israeli army opened fire without reason or provocation. The same [27] source page also notes: "The Israeli army issued a statement saying "hundreds of Syrian rioters" had crossed onto the Israeli side, and in response troops had "fired selectively" towards them, injuring an unspecified number."

It is unethical to leave the current wiki page as is, because the author clearly picked and chose information from his/her sources that misleads readers. Please change the article in favor of more objective information. Here would be an example of the changed paragraph:

"On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[26] When hundreds of rioters stormed over the Israeli border, at least twelve were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army.[27]"

My edited paragraph above is only using information provided by the very source material that is already cited. However, now it shows a more accurate picture of what happened. This is not about taking sides, just about giving a full and less biased picture.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Pol430 talk to me 19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ezmode (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The source you rely on certainly does not say that "hundreds of rioters stormed over the Israeli border". The word "stormed" does not appear at all; the word "rioters" is only used by, and ascribed to, the Israeli army; and, as the source cited for the previous sentence states, "the Syrians penetrated an area held by the State of Israel, but they did not cross the Israeli border." So all three elements of your proposed edit are false and unacceptable, and the requested edit should not be made. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to the following. Addition from AFP highlighted. Revert/amend at will.

• On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event. At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord. The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you making the revision, as it is more accurate than what was previously there. Now, in defence of what I wrote. There is objection to my use of the word "stormed" because it does not appear in the article. I imagine you object because it could have violent implications (the article does confirm violence on both sides, as shown by Israeli injuries). However, "forcibly enter" also "does not appear at all" in the article. "Forcibly entered" sounds nicer (has less threatening implications) but I question which word would better fit what happened that day. I wasn't there, and the article is a bit vague, but it is clear (according to the source) that a large group of protesters crossed into another country's border in a clearly unwelcome fashion. As a result, protesters and Israeli soldiers were wounded and killed (the article states a total of 13 Israelis were injured). Both sides were violent. In light of these facts, "stormed" does seem to reasonably apply to at least some of the protesters who crossed the border and engaged in violence. As for "rioters," I put that because it is used in the article. Obviously, there exists an assumption that the Israeli army must be inaccurate in their use of the term. I think that using the term "rioters" is not entirely inaccurate. Let me provide you with the definition of a "riot" as found on dictionary.com: "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets."

We see in the article that "Three army officers and 10 soldiers had been injured during the two incidents, it said, blaming Damascus and Beirut for the violence." ("It" being the Israeli Army) Some of the protesters were clearly violent and therefore clearly fit the definition of "rioter." So Roland, please do not attack my use of the word when it is both used in the source article and, based on the information, we can see that at least some of the protesters literally fit the dictionary definition of "rioter." I'm not debating the morality of any actions here, just defending the definitions of the words that you dispute.

Addressing your third claim, if a previous source disputes the crossing, that is a legitimate point. I was only addressing the fact that the author was CLEARLY grabbing information from a source without grabbing other critical information from that very same source.

Anyway, in terms of specific revisions to the paragraph, I think it is at least reasonable to mention the Israeli injuries if you are going to mention protester injuries and casualties. In favor of objectivity, all who were maimed or killed that day should be mentioned. So below is my proposed change. Please feel free to write it better. My only goal is to eliminate bias by providing as full a picture as possible. It just seems to me that there is too much cherry picking of this source. First, the border crossing was not mentioned, which is a critical point in this story. Now, the injured Israelis are not mentioned, which of course subtly biases the wiki by making the reader think that only one side was violent.

On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event.[1] At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. In addition, three Israeli army officers and ten Israeli soldiers were injured during the protests.[2] The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord.[2] The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezmode (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I used "forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" because the source said "force their way onto the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights". There is always a thin line been reflecting a source accurately, close paraphrasing and copyright violation.
• "Obviously, there exists an assumption that the Israeli army must be inaccurate in their use of the term." - no, but it is the IDF's narrative/version of events and it therefore needs to be attributed to them rather than presented in the voice of the encyclopedia.
• We can't measure the accuracy of IDF statements using dictionaries. It doesn't really matter whether they were rioters or not. What matters is that that is what the IDF said and a reliable secondary source reported it.
• Yes, I agree, the Israeli deaths and injuries should be included too. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The loss of Palestine

I included this phrase in the section on Defining Nakba. It was deleted by Israguy citing POV. There are numerous scholarly sources that define the Nakba as "the loss of Palestine" [See google books). Below, a sampling:

• "The nakba of 1948 — the loss of Palestine — had been compounded by another catastrophe ..." The Modern Middle East: A Political History Since the First World War By Mehran Kamrava
• "The idea of creating such a Palestinian framework was born at the time of the nakba (the Arabic term for disaster, or the loss of Palestine) and was nurtured by the revolutionary experience of Algeria." Syria and the Palestinians: the clash of nationalisms By Ghada Hashem Talhami
• "One of the most impressive aspects of the "return to 1948" phenomenon is the restoration of the collective historic memory of the "Nakba" — the catastrophic loss of Palestine in the 1948 war." Israel studies: IS., Volume 7 Merkaz le-moreshet Ben-Guryon, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Association for Israel Studies

More can be found at the google books link provided above. Are there any objections to restoring this phrase in the Defining Nakba section and if so, please explain why we should ignore its use by multiple reliable sources in a neutral voice. Tiamut^talk 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the Nakba as "the loss of Palestine" is one thing. But that is not what you wrote. The following are two different things:

• People define "Nakba" as "the loss of Palestine".
• The loss of Palestine is known as "the Nakbe".

In this discussion, you are using the first of the two, but in the article, you used the second one - which is clearly POV, and not neutral. Israguy (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited use the second formulation in a neutral voice no less. We should reflect what the sources say, not what you believe to be true. Tiamut^talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are scholarly sources that refer to "Nakba day" as "Yom Ha'atzmaut", day of independence. The 1948 Arab–Israeli War is also known as "Milkhemet Hashikhrur", war of liberation. Whould you like to use these terms instead? Israguy (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're getting at. Can you provide sources that say what you are trying to say? Tiamut^talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed "as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army" as according to refferences most were killed by arab armeis e.g. the lebanese army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources here that support your assertion for examination prior to removing information that is in the source cited in the article. Tiamut^talk 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The source you cited (Yediot Aharonot/Ynet) does not make this claim. It simply states that at one stage the Lebanese army fired in the air; it says nothing about any resulting casualties. The only deaths it mentions are four killed by Israeli fire in the Golan Heights. RolandR (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to add this, but according to many sources including Wikipedia itself 1948 Palestine War everyone agree that the Nakba was a result of an arab attack on what would become Israel as a direct result of the declaration of independence of Israel, in accordance to the UN resolution. Palestinians refused to accept this UN resolution and in an attack would hope to destroy Israel. The Nakba, therefore, is a result of their loss to Israel. Many refer to Nakba as the disaster of the creation of an Israeli Jewish state, and the failure in preventing it. Demonstrators and Arab media describe Nakba as "the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation in 1948" as well. I think this article should reflect these simple truths that are well known. If more sources needed I'm happy to provide. This will make the article less bias since it will expose some of the not so comfortable truths about the Nakba. Also see this great post about this book and many, many other sources that attibutes the Nakba to the failure of the arab attack to destroy the new state of Israel. It is amazing to me that none of this is even mentioned throughout this article. Shaipetel (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)